The Greatest...

First topic message reminder :

OK.

There was a post from D4 saying that if Khan became a 5-weight world champ he'd be the greatest Briton ever. I agree he'd be up there - but IMO Fitzsimmons, Lewis and Wilde are still ahead of him.

SRR is almost universally accepted to be the greatest fighter of all time. Or Burley. Or Langford. Or Jackson (just for Dave). Or Ali.

Other sports still allow modern fighters to achieve "greatness" - Tendulkar, Federer for example. But can a modern day boxer become accepted to be "the greatest".

2 questions:

1. Could Manny become "the greatest"? Who (ideal world) does he need to beat?

2. We have an undefeated world champion called 606face. 606face has just won a title at 140 - but reckons he can be effective all the way to light middle - he ways 152 on fight night and rehydrates well. Who in the current scene does 606face need to beat to be "the greatest". Even if he beats everyone - could he still become no.1?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

None. Perhaps you should read what I write free from assumptions.

Perhaps if any of it made any sense I could try to.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

None. Perhaps you should read what I write free from assumptions.

Perhaps if any of it made any sense I could try to.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

None. Perhaps you should read what I write free from assumptions.

Perhaps if any of it made any sense I could try to.

That's better.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

None. Perhaps you should read what I write free from assumptions.

Perhaps if any of it made any sense I could try to.

That's better.

Its the drink. Mr Daniel has been keeping me company as the family went to the in-laws.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

None. Perhaps you should read what I write free from assumptions.

Perhaps if any of it made any sense I could try to.

That's better.

Its the drink. Mr Daniel has been keeping me company as the family went to the in-laws.

You enjoy it, mate.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

Again, manos, Joe Frazier, ( I cite him because he is modern enough to not be accused of nostalgia, ) has said that there just aren't enough good teachers passing on the old skills any more. Without these teachers the skills will die, as with swordsmanship. Every man in Britain could, at one time, wield a sword. How many can do so today ?

Or is Joe Frazier also wrong ?

I dont know is the simple answer. Joes take on it may be there arent as many, someone elses might disagree. Joe might only be able to speak for certain areas though.

Well, look at the difference Roach has made to Khan, and the difference Steward made to Lennox and Wlad. Why weren't they so effective before, each of them being already a world champion ?

Yes it made a huge difference which is kind of what Im saying. Roach and Steward had years of knowledge of the game which had been handed down from others with years of knowledge and were able to use this to greatly improve fighters.

Corbett and Fitz etc didnt have this. They had to do it for themselves.

I dont believe Lewis was just born a better fighter by virtue of being born when he was. But he was had the advantage of being able to learn from people with accumulated knowledge of the sport.

Plenty of kids now go through extensive amateur training and coachind with bags of amateur experience learning from various trainers and coaches and getting experience fighting other top amateurs. Fitzsimmons was working the furnace at the equivalent time.

But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

I give up.

Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

Congratulations Az. You've exceeded your own standards of talking gibberish.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

I give up.

Lennox was a typical Kronk style fighter. Everything working behind the jad. Pep Correra could not utilise Lennox's talents as well as Manny could.

BALTIMORA wrote:Congratulations Az. You've exceeded your own standards of talking gibberish.

Please elaborate.

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

But they COULD HAVE learned, which is what my argument is based on. The potential was there.

There will always be rubbish trainers and rubbish fighters just like there will always be great trainers and great fighters.

Would Lennox have been a great if Steward wasnt available with all his experience?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

I give up.

Lennox was a typical Kronk style fighter. Everything working behind the jad. Pep Correra could not utilise Lennox's talents as well as Manny could.

WELL IF HE'D BEEN ANY BLOODY GOOD HE WOULD HAVE, WOULDN'T HE ?

I'm out of here.

If Khan can't become greater than Fitz, Lewis or Wilde no matter who he beats then it's time to stop comparing eras.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

I give up.

Lennox was a typical Kronk style fighter. Everything working behind the jad. Pep Correra could not utilise Lennox's talents as well as Manny could.

WELL IF HE'D BEEN ANY BLOODY GOOD HE WOULD HAVE, WOULDN'T HE ?

I'm out of here.

Fitz has no-one to learn from.

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

Yep. Totally agree. Just because a guy is more muscular and 'stronger', doesn't always translate cleanly into guaranteed wins.

Scottrf wrote:If Khan can't become greater than Fitz, Lewis or Wilde no matter who he beats then it's time to stop comparing eras.

Well I, for one, don't believe it's impossible, and have never said so.

I used to believe that Benny Leonard was the greatest lightweight of all time, but over the last few years I've changed my mind and now favour Duran.

I've NEVER said that moderns can't be as good as the oldies, but I have ALWAYS maintained that the oldies can be ranked alongside the moderns.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

I give up.

Lennox was a typical Kronk style fighter. Everything working behind the jad. Pep Correra could not utilise Lennox's talents as well as Manny could.

WELL IF HE'D BEEN ANY BLOODY GOOD HE WOULD HAVE, WOULDN'T HE ?

I'm out of here.

Fitz has no-one to learn from.

Well, Benny Leonard DID. So did Joe Louis, whom you routinely trash, But hey, let's hear it for Chris Arreola, right ?

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Good analogy.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Good analogy.

Okay, Galileo.

Fellas, I'm away.

Enjoy the rest of the debate. Will pick it up tomorrow.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:But their previous trainers DIDN'T learn.

Same with fighters. Great ones do and mediocre ones don't.

It was ever so.

Their previous trainers were not as good to the styles of Lennox and Khan.

I give up.

Lennox was a typical Kronk style fighter. Everything working behind the jad. Pep Correra could not utilise Lennox's talents as well as Manny could.

WELL IF HE'D BEEN ANY BLOODY GOOD HE WOULD HAVE, WOULDN'T HE ?

I'm out of here.

Fitz has no-one to learn from.

Well, Benny Leonard DID. So did Joe Louis, whom you routinely trash, But hey, let's hear it for Chris Arreola, right ?

Here you go again. Using a 60 year span and then bringing up the worst possible example in Arreola.

I trask Louis because I dont think he was that great. I'd pick Dempsey over him in a H2H and Liston etc over him. His record stands up as an ATG so he remains one.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:If Khan can't become greater than Fitz, Lewis or Wilde no matter who he beats then it's time to stop comparing eras.

Well I, for one, don't believe it's impossible, and have never said so.

I used to believe that Benny Leonard was the greatest lightweight of all time, but over the last few years I've changed my mind and now favour Duran.

I've NEVER said that moderns can't be as good as the oldies, but I have ALWAYS maintained that the oldies can be ranked alongside the moderns.

I agree but would you not accept that its stacked in favour of older fighters?

The ones that are there first have the advantage as the burden to displace them is heavier. Then when you factor in the changes that have occured this burden becomes even heavier.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Utter rubbish. Sure, the guy who's spent three months in training may look in better shape, but the guy who's been fighting once a month or more has picked up much more valuable EXPERIENCE and honed his skills in ways that Mr 90 days of hitting pads can only dream of.

Spot on Balti, if gym time was half as vaulable as actual in the ring fighting time the phrase ring rust would never have been invented.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Utter rubbish. Sure, the guy who's spent three months in training may look in better shape, but the guy who's been fighting once a month or more has picked up much more valuable EXPERIENCE and honed his skills in ways that Mr 90 days of hitting pads can only dream of.

Sorry, but if you think that all training for 3 months is pad hitting then you are being as dismissive as I have been.

If you are going to spend 3 months in a training camp preparing for a major fight, then by definition you are no longer a novice. Picking toughmen from a local bar or travelling carnival adds little experience except for a wage.

rowley wrote:Spot on Balti, if gym time was half as vaulable as actual in the ring fighting time the phrase ring rust would never have been invented.

Peter Buckley should be world champ then.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Utter rubbish. Sure, the guy who's spent three months in training may look in better shape, but the guy who's been fighting once a month or more has picked up much more valuable EXPERIENCE and honed his skills in ways that Mr 90 days of hitting pads can only dream of.

Completely dependant on who you are fighting. Look at the French chap De Gale fought in his last outing. Give me some decent sparring and padwork over that kind of experience anyday.

I dont think you discount the advantages being able to study tapes of your opponent and spend a training camp working on specific gameplans and techniques tailored to your opponent. Someone like Floyd Mayweather for instance is meticulous in studying his opponents weaknesses and getting the right sparring partners and gameplan etc. Hence he can always surprise people by being able to beat Hatton up front or be the aggressor in the Mosely fight for instance.

There are also benefits associated with longer rest periods which allow the body to get sifficient recovery time. Often in the older days you will see losses or poor performances put down to a fighter not being fully recovered after a previous bout or carrying an injury.

There are middle grounds to be found.

Six months between fights is ridiculous I don't see any good reason why fighters shouldn't shouldn't fight once a month. Surely the more you compete the sharper you are. Sparring is fine but can't be compared to being in a proper match.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Spot on Balti, if gym time was half as vaulable as actual in the ring fighting time the phrase ring rust would never have been invented.

Peter Buckley should be world champ then.

Not really still need talent, for what it is worth though Buckley did in his own way become extremely good at what he did, rarely got bashed up, almost never got stopped and always gave his opponents valuable rounds. Pretty much the perfect journeyman.

Personally as Manos says there is a middle ground and anyone can see the benefit of having three months to prepare and develop meticulous plans for opponents, however where my main issue is is it isn't just the elite at the top of their game that are having a long time between fights and for these guys it is nearer six months than 3 it is guys barely out of the amateurs.

For me, have said it countless times you will be a better fighter after 50 fights than 20. Now if you have had those fifty fights by 25 rather than 35 year old you will be even better.

manos de piedra wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Utter rubbish. Sure, the guy who's spent three months in training may look in better shape, but the guy who's been fighting once a month or more has picked up much more valuable EXPERIENCE and honed his skills in ways that Mr 90 days of hitting pads can only dream of.

Completely dependant on who you are fighting. Look at the French chap De Gale fought in his last outing. Give me some decent sparring and padwork over that kind of experience anyday.

I dont think you discount the advantages being able to study tapes of your opponent and spend a training camp working on specific gameplans and techniques tailored to your opponent. Someone like Floyd Mayweather for instance is meticulous in studying his opponents weaknesses and getting the right sparring partners and gameplan etc. Hence he can always surprise people by being able to beat Hatton up front or be the aggressor in the Mosely fight for instance.

There are also benefits associated with longer rest periods which allow the body to get sifficient recovery time. Often in the older days you will see losses or poor performances put down to a fighter not being fully recovered after a previous bout or carrying an injury.

There are middle grounds to be found.

Good points.

prettyboy1304 wrote:Six months between fights is ridiculous I don't see any good reason why fighters shouldn't shouldn't fight once a month. Surely the more you compete the sharper you are. Sparring is fine but can't be compared to being in a proper match.

A novice should fight more often to gain the experience. When the stakes are higher as has been pointed out, more specific training is required hence a longer camp.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Spot on Balti, if gym time was half as vaulable as actual in the ring fighting time the phrase ring rust would never have been invented.

Peter Buckley should be world champ then.

Not really still need talent, for what it is worth though Buckley did in his own way become extremely good at what he did, rarely got bashed up, almost never got stopped and always gave his opponents valuable rounds. Pretty much the perfect journeyman.

Personally as Manos says there is a middle ground and anyone can see the benefit of having three months to prepare and develop meticulous plans for opponents, however where my main issue is is it isn't just the elite at the top of their game that are having a long time between fights and for these guys it is nearer six months than 3 it is guys barely out of the amateurs.

For me, have said it countless times you will be a better fighter after 50 fights than 20. Now if you have had those fifty fights by 25 rather than 35 year old you will be even better.

If you fight 50 stiffs, you wont be much better than a guy fighting 20 varied opponents with different styles and prepering for each.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Six months between fights is ridiculous I don't see any good reason why fighters shouldn't shouldn't fight once a month. Surely the more you compete the sharper you are. Sparring is fine but can't be compared to being in a proper match.

A novice should fight more often to gain the experience. When the stakes are higher as has been pointed out, more specific training is required hence a longer camp.

Novices should fight as often as possible at times every fortnight. Footballers call it match sharpness you can only get so much from training regular fighting will enhance your timing and accuracy.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Six months between fights is ridiculous I don't see any good reason why fighters shouldn't shouldn't fight once a month. Surely the more you compete the sharper you are. Sparring is fine but can't be compared to being in a proper match.

A novice should fight more often to gain the experience. When the stakes are higher as has been pointed out, more specific training is required hence a longer camp.

Novices should fight as often as possible at times every fortnight. Footballers call it match sharpness you can only get so much from training regular fighting will enhance your timing and accuracy.

No promoter in Britain can afford to pay a half decent boxer every two weeks.

Scottrf wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Six months between fights is ridiculous I don't see any good reason why fighters shouldn't shouldn't fight once a month. Surely the more you compete the sharper you are. Sparring is fine but can't be compared to being in a proper match.

A novice should fight more often to gain the experience. When the stakes are higher as has been pointed out, more specific training is required hence a longer camp.

Novices should fight as often as possible at times every fortnight. Footballers call it match sharpness you can only get so much from training regular fighting will enhance your timing and accuracy.

No promoter in Britain can afford to pay a half decent boxer every two weeks.

It's not about money most would be low key fights on small cards. 4, 6 or 8 rounds It's about getting experience not earning big money. Building a foundation to earn the big money in the future.

What quality of opposition do you think you can get in on the cheap? Groves sparring with Dirrell teaches him more than a 6 rounder boxer will, without the risk to his record.

Scottrf wrote:What quality of opposition do you think you can get in on the cheap? Groves sparring with Dirrell teaches him more than a 6 rounder boxer will, without the risk to his record.

Groves sparring with Dirrell is better experience than fighting some bum from your local boozer.

In the modern game for upcoming fighters/prospects its actually the sparring which is the primary development tool at the start.

The 4/6 rounders they fight are nothing more than record and ranking building. The real work goes on in the gym with high quality sparring.

manos de piedra wrote:In the modern game for upcoming fighters/prospects its actually the sparring which is the primary development tool at the start.

The 4/6 rounders they fight are nothing more than record and ranking building. The real work goes on in the gym with high quality sparring.

I'm maybe old fashioned but still think their is no substitute for getting in the ring and trying out the stuff you learn in the gym. The big importance placed on zeros is also a big problem. A defeat should be looked upon more as a learning curve.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:In the modern game for upcoming fighters/prospects its actually the sparring which is the primary development tool at the start.

The 4/6 rounders they fight are nothing more than record and ranking building. The real work goes on in the gym with high quality sparring.

I'm maybe old fashioned but still think their is no substitute for getting in the ring and trying out the stuff you learn in the gym. The big importance placed on zeros is also a big problem. A defeat should be looked upon more as a learning curve.

True to a point. The loss was beneficial to Khan.

Losses aren't the worst thing that can happen to fighters Bernard Hopkins lost his first fight.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:In the modern game for upcoming fighters/prospects its actually the sparring which is the primary development tool at the start.

The 4/6 rounders they fight are nothing more than record and ranking building. The real work goes on in the gym with high quality sparring.

I'm maybe old fashioned but still think their is no substitute for getting in the ring and trying out the stuff you learn in the gym. The big importance placed on zeros is also a big problem. A defeat should be looked upon more as a learning curve.

Well this is basically what they do. They do all the tough training and sparring and then line up some low threat opponent to practice on and build up their record.

You can find examples in the old days of fighters being matched tough early and picking up losses but in the majority of cases they arent being matched with world class opposition from the get go.

There are drawbacks to the "learning on the job" approach. You cant tailor it to work on certain aspects as you can with sparring. For instance Maywather practices fighting off the ropes alot in sparring and telling his sparring patners to really attack him. You cant try this in a competitive fight or you risk losing or being stopped.

People will use Khan as an example and say the Prescott defeat highlighted his flaws etc but I think the flaws were evident well before Prescott when the likes of Gomez and Limond were flooring him. For me it was obvious the right work wasnt going on in the gym and I would argue that if he had perhaps started with Roach from the outset and been sparring with Pacquiao then there would never have been a need for the Prescott wake up call at all.

I agree but just see the benefit from being in the ring. If you lose get back in and go again learn from what you did wrong and work on it. Johnny Nelson lost his first 3 fights and still had a good career. You can pick fighters to fight based on their styles to work on certain skills you have been working on.

This is getting beyond a joke now, can we not have a civil debate without the same morons butting in with their undeducated tripe

I'll post this again and maybe it will make you understand why new isn't necessarily better, the comparitive wins of three recognized all time great light heavyweights against fellow greats.

Jones: Toney, McCallum and Hopkins
Tunney: Dempsey, Gibbons, Smith, Carpentier, Greb and Levinsky
Charles: Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Lesnevich, Ray, Moore, Marshall, Burley and Yarosz

Now tell me how in a million years Jones could be ranked higher when he only holds 3 wins over fellow top class opposition compared to 6 for Tunney and an incredible 10 for Charles with the latter two holding multiple wins against them

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

Are they technically better boxers or just better (or have the potential to be) athletes? No 'protein shake', creatine or Jack3d is gonna make you a technically better boxer.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Guess you never heard of Manny Pacquiao

Nice touch D4 it certainly gave me a chuckle!